Exodus Archeology Evidence

[shunyadragon]

Name the Church Fathers please and their letters.

It would be nice if you would do your own homework, but nonetheless the following thread in the past in this forum I began sometime ago deals with it in detail.

Did the Church Fathers and other early scholars consider Genesis and the Pentateuch literal?

As the previous thread this thread deals with specifically 'Did Church Fathers' and early scholars consider Genesis and the Pentateuch historically literal? In this thread I will emphasize the Orthodox view of the Church Fathers and scholars that represent the overwhelming view of the Christian...

www.religiousforums.com

I will resurrect the thread and we can discuss it further,

 

[gnostic]

In all those years what have you determined?

That you couldn’t reconcile the scriptures with known history.

Myth may as well be synonymous with fiction. You should use the word fiction if that is what you have concluded.

That neither books about Abraham, Joseph & Moses could name any of the kings that they were supposedly “contemporary“ to, because i think the authors (of Genesis & Exodus) didn’t write during those times (eg Bronze Age).

Take for instance, Joseph in Egypt, the authors have named the Joseph’s slave master - the king’s guard captain, Potiphar (Genesis 39), and have named Joseph’s father-in-law, the high priest of On (Heliopolis) Potipherah (Genesis 41), two insignificant fictional characters, BUT couldn’t name the king of Egypt, who made Joseph the second most powerful person in charge of Egypt, other than calling him “pharaoh“, which isn’t a name but title for a monarch that wasn’t even used in Egypt until the 18th dynasty, eg from 15th century BCE and onwards.

Then in the Exodus, like Exodus 1 & 2, the king who ruled Egypt at the time of Moses’ birth, not only the king was nameless, so was princess - the King’s Daughter (Exodus 2) - just as nameless and yet she had adopted the foundling and raised him in the “royal” family.

And it is most likely a different king was ruling Egypt, 80 years later, who eventually allowed Israelites, their freedom, after Egypt been through a series of plagues, but this king was also nameless.

My guess, is that the authors of Genesis & Exodus were living in Babylon at the time of exile (6th century BCE), have no access to Egyptian sources or records, so they invented stories where the kings (and 1 princess) weren’t given any names that could have identified which the Bronze Age dynasties & periods.

Without any names of Egypt’s monarchs, people have to guess when the stories of Joseph and Moses as to what periods they were contemporary.

Plus, there are no Egyptian records that can verify the events claimed in Genesis & in Exodus.

Dis you know many of Egypt’s monarchs, not only the names they were born with, but their royal names (written in hieroglyphs and within cartouches) too, their names also appeared in king lists or in royal annals.

Plus we know of their names of their fathers, mothers, husbands, wives, sons, daughters, etc? As a king often married his sister(s), incest was normal practice.

These names are often found inscribed on stone walls of tombs, or on sarcophagus or coffins, or inscribed on stone stelae that recorded their achievements. These are what I would call “CONTEMPORARY” RECORDS.

That’s one of the main reasons why I view all stories prior to the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, to be mythological, as none of it can be verified, historically or archaeologically.

 

[Dimi95]

Take for instance, Joseph in Egypt, the authors have named the Joseph’s slave master - the king’s guard captain, Potiphar (Genesis 39), and have named Joseph’s father-in-law, the high priest of On (Heliopolis) Potipherah (Genesis 41), two insignificant fictional characters, BUT couldn’t name the king of Egypt, who made Joseph the second most powerful person in charge of Egypt, other than calling him “pharaoh“, which isn’t a name but title for a monarch that wasn’t even used in Egypt until the 18th dynasty, eg from 15th century BCE and onwards.

Potiphar - he whom Re gives
Potipherah - he whom Ra has given
Pharaoh - house of Ra/mouth of Ra

The word pharaoh was first used to refer to the palace of the king and its greatness, not just to the king himself. From the Twelfth Dynasty onward, the word appears as:
'Great House, may it live, prosper and be in health'
But this is only with reference to the royal palace and not the person.
It was not until sometime during the Second Intermediate Period of the New Kingdom (1800BC-1550BC) that 'pharaoh' became a term of address for the king himself.
The earliest confirmed evidence is found in a letter addressed to Akhenaten (c. 1353–1336BC).
Beginning with the nineteenth dynasty 'pr-ꜥꜣ' on its own was used as regularly as 'ḥm' - 'Majesty'.

The word came to be used metonymically for the Egyptian king under the New Kingdom (starting in the 18th dynasty)

 

[Jayhawker Soule]

It would be nice if you would do your own homework, but nonetheless ...

And it would be nice if you actually read a book, but nonetheless ...

 

[shunyadragon]

And it would be nice if you actually read a book, but nonetheless ...

Extreme sarcasm noted with an agenda. Your only response in the other thread was OFF TOPIC.

 

[GoodAttention]

That neither books about Abraham, Joseph & Moses could name any of the kings that they were supposedly “contemporary“ to, because i think the authors (of Genesis & Exodus) didn’t write during those times (eg Bronze Age).

Take for instance, Joseph in Egypt, the authors have named the Joseph’s slave master - the king’s guard captain, Potiphar (Genesis 39), and have named Joseph’s father-in-law, the high priest of On (Heliopolis) Potipherah (Genesis 41), two insignificant fictional characters, BUT couldn’t name the king of Egypt, who made Joseph the second most powerful person in charge of Egypt, other than calling him “pharaoh“, which isn’t a name but title for a monarch that wasn’t even used in Egypt until the 18th dynasty, eg from 15th century BCE and onwards.

Then in the Exodus, like Exodus 1 & 2, the king who ruled Egypt at the time of Moses’ birth, not only the king was nameless, so was princess - the King’s Daughter (Exodus 2) - just as nameless and yet she had adopted the foundling and raised him in the “royal” family.

And it is most likely a different king was ruling Egypt, 80 years later, who eventually allowed Israelites, their freedom, after Egypt been through a series of plagues, but this king was also nameless.

My guess, is that the authors of Genesis & Exodus were living in Babylon at the time of exile (6th century BCE), have no access to Egyptian sources or records, so they invented stories where the kings (and 1 princess) weren’t given any names that could have identified which the Bronze Age dynasties & periods.

Without any names of Egypt’s monarchs, people have to guess when the stories of Joseph and Moses as to what periods they were contemporary.

Plus, there are no Egyptian records that can verify the events claimed in Genesis & in Exodus.

Dis you know many of Egypt’s monarchs, not only the names they were born with, but their royal names (written in hieroglyphs and within cartouches) too, their names also appeared in king lists or in royal annals.

Plus we know of their names of their fathers, mothers, husbands, wives, sons, daughters, etc? As a king often married his sister(s), incest was normal practice.

These names are often found inscribed on stone walls of tombs, or on sarcophagus or coffins, or inscribed on stone stelae that recorded their achievements. These are what I would call “CONTEMPORARY” RECORDS.

That’s one of the main reasons why I view all stories prior to the kingdoms of Judah and Israel, to be mythological, as none of it can be verified, historically or archaeologically.

So is your conclusion that the lack of names makes the Exodus scripture an unreliable CONTEMPORARY record?

Sure, I can understand your point of view.

It is your use of the word mythological that I do not understand, because what are you saying exactly?

Shouldn’t your conclusion be, there is no evidence for a literal consideration of the Exodus story?

 

[shunyadragon]

So is your conclusion that the lack of names makes the Exodus scripture an unreliable CONTEMPORARY record?

Sure, I can understand your point of view.

It is your use of the word mythological that I do not understand, because what are you saying exactly?

Shouldn’t your conclusion be, there is no evidence for a literal consideration of the Exodus story?

It is ot the lack of names of the kings and Pharaohs that are the main issue. It is the lack of context of the Exodus record in history as recorded in the Pentateuch and the lack of corresponding records and references outside the Pentateuch that are the main issues. The lack of supporting evidence for Moses, the lack of evidence for the actual Exodus journey event, Joshua and Joshua's invasion of the Levant.

I consider it "Created History" loosely based on the Canaanite Hyksos expulsion from Egypt. The relationship between the Hyksos and the Hebrews is an interesting possibility currently lacking good evidence,

 

[shunyadragon]

Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites

DNA analysis of 93 bodies shows that modern Jewish and Arab-speaking groups of the region are descendants of ancient Canaanites.

www.biblicalarchaeology.org

Jews and Arabs Descended from Canaanites​

DNA analysis, from bodies found at several sites, explains more than half of ancestry

Jonathan Laden November 14, 2024 48 Comments 154239 views Share


After examining the DNA of 93 bodies recovered from archaeological sites around the southern Levant, the land of Canaan in the Bible, researchers have concluded that modern populations of the region are descendants of the ancient Canaanites. Most modern Jewish groups and the Arabic-speaking groups from the region show at least half of their ancestry as Canaanite.

In the study, published in Cell in May, 2020, the researchers explain that they used existing DNA analysis of 20 individuals, from sites in Israel and Lebanon, and then added 73 more, taking DNA from the bones of individuals found at Tel Megiddo, Tel Abel Beth Maacah and Tel Hazor (Northern Israel), Yehud (central Israel) and Baq’ah (central Jordan). By first eliminating individuals closely related to other individuals in the sample, then comparing the remaining 62 DNA samples against a dataset of 1,663 modern individuals, they were able to establish the genetic link to the modern populations. The ethnic groups either still living where Canaan once dominated, or from that area prior to moving elsewhere, are largely descended from the Canaanites.

Canaanite culture was dominant in the Southern Levant during the Bronze Age (3,500-1,200 B.C.E.) As Iron Age I began, the Canaanite city-states faded. The Israelites self-identified as a separate group. As Volkmar Fritz speculates in Israelites and Canaanites, the Israelites may have formed distinct living arrangements, establishing small villages on peripheral land not previously settled and living mostly in four-room houses. Ultimately, the Israelites formed the states of Israel and Judah, while other biblical states, Ammon, Moab, Aram-Damascus, and Phoenician city-states, emerged. Today, the region consists of Israel, Lebanon, Jordan, the Palestinian Authority, and southwest Syria.

The study in Cell not only establishes that the ancient Israelites were descended from the Canaanites, but also establishes that the Canaanite people across the separate city-states of the southern Levant, and over a period of 1,500 years, were a genetically cohesive people.

 

[gnostic]

So is your conclusion that the lack of names makes the Exodus scripture an unreliable CONTEMPORARY record?

Sure, I can understand your point of view.

It is your use of the word mythological that I do not understand, because what are you saying exactly?

Shouldn’t your conclusion be, there is no evidence for a literal consideration of the Exodus story?

You are not paying attention, GoodAttention.

The Exodus was written in the 6th century BCE, when prominent Jews were living in exile after the fall of Jerusalem to Nebuchadnezzar II’s Babylonian army in 587 BCE. There are no evidence that Exodus (book) existed in the Late Bronze Age. Hence, the Exodus ISN’T A CONTEMPORARY SOURCE!!!

Do you even know what contemporary means?

The Exodus isn’t contemporary to Moses; Moses isn’t even a historical figure. His story was invented by the exiled priests/authors. The story may set in the Late Bronze Age, but the Exodus wasn’t written in the Late Bronze Age.

Some Jewish traditions as well as some Christian traditions, may claimed that the Genesis, Exodus, Numbers & Leviticus that Moses was the author, but that’s clearly false, just as the Book of Enoch wasn’t written by Enoch.

In ancient Egypt, they have their own religion, and with them, their own corpus of vast variety of their own myths about their respective gods.

But many of monarchs in the 2nd millennium BCE, particularly in the Middle Kingdom period (dynasties 11 & 12), and even more so in the New Kingdom period (dynasties 18 & 19, less so with 20th dynasty), there are abundance of contemporary texts, that we can piece together their lives including their families, and that’s how we can verify their existence.

i am much more familiar with the history of Old Kingdom dynasties & the New Kingdom dynasties than I am with the Middle Kingdom dynasties. With the Old Kingdom it is more about archaeology than written historical texts, but with the New Kingdom it is both texts & archaeological evidence that verify each other.

Plus, there are numbers of independent sources and evidence that verify the reigns of these kings, because there are frequent correspondents that were exchanged between Egypt and other kingdoms, including the Hittite rulers, the Mari, Assyria, Babylonia, and even with Canaan with Megiddo.

The Iron Age kingdoms of Judah and of Israel, on the other hand, there are no contemporary records of the respective kings. The only information you get from these two kingdoms, comes from the books of Kings that were written during exile at Babylon. Few events of 1 & 2 Kings are verified by independent sources, eg from Assyria, during the 7th and 6th centuries BCE.

What you don’t seems to understand, GoodAttention, that the more decades or centuries have passed, the less reliable are the sources.

Contemporary sources are generally preferable to sources written decades or centuries later.

The Exodus isn’t reliable.